Upendra Narayan Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar and Jharkhand (Patna High Court)
Patna High Court held that compounding charge should be deposited by the petitioner abiding his statement and issue of apportionment of compounding charges should be considered by the Secretary, Rural Works Department.
Facts- The State of Bihar in it’s Rural Works Department, Dhamdaha Works Division, Purnea was found lacking in deposit of the income tax deducted at source within statutory period during F.Y. 2012-13. The Income Tax department initiated action in accordance with law and recovered Rs. 34,14,450/- from the bank account of the Division on account of short deduction, interest and late fine.
The Rural Works Department found that the Executive Officer being the Drawing and Disbursing Authority of the department was deficient in not depositing the tax deducted at source, the Income Tax Department had initiated action u/s. 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in the process attached the bank account of the department. Secretary, Rural Works Department held that the responsibility to deduct the amount and deposit the same with the Income Tax Department is that of the Executive Officer and he is to be assisted in this matter by the Divisional Accounts Officer, Accounts Clerk and Cashier, who are deputed for this purpose but they had shown negligence in carrying out their responsibilities, so, they are equally liable to pay the interest and fine amount which have been recovered by the Income Tax Department in the ratio of 25% each.
